THE EDITOR, Sir:DAWN RITCH has outdone herself. In her indecent haste to attack the Government and specifically FINSAC, she has written what has to be the most malicious piece of nonsense written by a Gleaner commentator in a long time. The article "Closed window of opportunity" is offensive to any Jamaican who has ever borrowed money and discharged the responsibility of repaying it.
If I understand Ms. Ritch correctly, her difficulty is that FINSAC has not supplied the debtors with the criteria determining its 'minimum expected recovery' for each loan. The last time I checked, none of the commercial banks and other lending institutions - or even courts and other hire purchase entities - that have bad debts have mailed out to their debtors anything stating how they review proposals for repayment of these debts. FINSAC, by the mere act of putting their manual on the Internet has done much more than any of these institutions.
When you owe money, the starting point is the amount you owe. If a debtor cannot repay that, then he needs to negotiate. Can you imagine the scenario if FINSAC indicated the minimum expected recovery on each of its loans? Those who have more would simply offer to pay no more than the minimum and walk away scot-free!
FINSAC has a duty to me, as a taxpayer, to recover as much as it can, and if it does that by not disclosing the minimum recovery figure, then I say more power to them! I cannot understand why Ms. Ritch would call this approach "arbitrary". Ms Ritch has clearly ignored the fact that FINSAC was prepared to go as far as to put their policy manual on the Internet, which would tend to suggest an absence of arbitrariness to my objective mind.
Whether the FINSAC exercise was a good idea or not, the fact is that the money has been spent and I want FINSAC to do whatever it can to recover as much as it can from these debtors.
I am etc,
DAVID BLACKWOOD
E-mail: dreadlover@hotmail.com
96 Constant Spring Road
Kingston 10
Via Go-Jamaica
